The Denver-based federal appeals court on Tuesday left in place a trial judge’s order that temporarily halted removals of alleged “alien enemies” from Colorado and imposed procedural safeguards enabling detainees to challenge their classifications.

On April 22, U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney issued a temporary restraining order in a case brought by two detained Venezuelan men on behalf of themselves and all others subject to President Donald Trump’s proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. In the March 14 proclamation, Trump initiated a process to summarily remove non-citizens, over the age of 14, accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang.

Sweeney prevented the government from executing unilateral removals of alleged “alien enemies,” instead requiring the government to give people 21 days’ notice and advise them they can contest their designations and consult with an attorney. That information must be conveyed in a language the recipient understands.

The U.S. Department of Justice turned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Even though temporary restraining orders are typically not appealable, the government asked the circuit to suspend, or stay, Sweeney’s 14-day order because she allegedly exceeded her authority.

In an April 29 order, a three-judge panel turned down the request, believing the government had not shown Sweeney’s directive would result in an “irreparable injury.”

Given the “important unresolved issues under the Alien Enemies Act” and the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has already blocked removals in a similar case out of Texas, “there is no realistic possibility that the government could remove any member of the class from this country before final expiration of the TRO on May 6, 2025,” wrote the panel.

The members of the circuit panel were Judges Harris L Hartz, a George W. Bush appointee; Gregory A. Phillips, a Barack Obama appointee; and Joel M. Carson III, a first-term Trump appointee.

Sweeney, meanwhile, is reviewing the parties’ arguments and will decide whether to issue a longer-term preliminary injunction by next week.

The two named petitioners, D.B.U. and R.M.M., alleged they are Venezuelan nationals detained in Colorado who have incorrectly been labeled as members of TdA. One of the men alleged he, in fact, “lives in fear of the gang” because the group killed two of his family members.

They filed under a legal tool known as “habeas corpus,” which challenges a person’s convictions or confinement as unlawful. The Supreme Court decided, by 5-4 earlier this month, that a habeas action in the place of detention was the required approach.

In part, Sweeney, an appointee of Joe Biden, felt the Supreme Court recently cleared the path for her to block removals, following its early-morning order on April 19 in a case out of Texas. That litigation, which she called “extremely similar” to the case before her, also involved a request to intervene on behalf of a class of alleged “alien enemies.” Without elaboration, the Supreme Court halted removal efforts.

The government, in requesting a stay from the 10th Circuit, only cited that case in passing. Instead, it argued the Alien Enemies Act provides “enormous discretion” to the president. There was “no evidence that the government intends to detain either Petitioner” under the act, wrote the Justice Department. It further disputed that Sweeney needed to impose additional requirements to protect the rights of the accused.

“That the notice is not written in the alien’s native language is of no moment,” wrote the government’s lawyers.

Attorneys for the petitioners countered that in reality, the government has admitted to providing as few as 12 hours’ notice for alleged “alien enemies” to say whether they will file a habeas petition, and 24 hours to actually file one.

“In short, 12 hours would be unreasonable under any circumstances but it is especially unreasonable here given the nature of the class and the consequences of ending up in a Salvadoran prison for the rest of their lives,” wrote lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Colorado and other organizations.

Although the 10th Circuit’s action means Sweeney’s temporary restraining order will remain in effect for seven more days, she has directed the parties to submit their written arguments in favor of or against a longer-term preliminary injunction by the end of Friday.

The case is D.B.U. et al. v. Trump et al.